http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NARENDRA PANDURANG KADAM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/12/1994

BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR  782            1995 SCC  (1) 320  JT 1995 (1)   244        1994 SCALE  (5)335

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: 1.Leave granted. 2.This  case  has arisen out of an insurance claim  made  by Narendra 245 Pandurang  Kadam.   Narendra was a bright  student  studying Industrial  Electronics.  He stood- first in his  class  and fourth in the college.  He was physically fit and a  sports- man.  On 18.5.1980, at about 6 A.M., Narendra was travelling with one Sunil David on motorcycle bearing No.GDC7526  along Afonso   de  Albuquerque  Road,  Panaji,  Goa.    When   the motorcycle  carrying  the  claimant and  his  companion  had reached  a  road crossing the bus No.GDS1574 driven  by  the Alisaheb Appasaheb Nadar, belonging to Ashok Vishwanath Naik came  from  the  Western section of  Albuquerque  road,  and collided with the motorcycle.  As a result of which Narendra sustained serious injuries. 3.   Narendra’s case is that the accident was     due     to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of  the bus.   He  was plying the bus at very high  speed,  and  was unable  to control the vehicle at the  intersection.   After the  accident the motor cycle was dragged to a  considerable distance  before the bus could be stopped.  As a  result  of the accident, Narendra sustained fracture of the bone in the left  leg  resulting  in permanent shortening  of  the  leg, disability of the right index finger, fracture of the 6th  & 7th  ribs, loss of vision of both eyes with 100%  disability and  one  of  his kidneys had to be removed.   The  bus  was insured  with  United  India  Insurance  Company  Ltd.,  the appellant herein. 4.   Narendra  lodged  a claim for compensation  before  the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, Goa.  The claim  was for Rs.6,25,000/-. The claim was lodged after more than  two years.  A preliminary point of limitation was raised by  the bus  driver,  the  owner of the vehicle  and  the  insurance company.   The preliminary objection did not  succeed.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Tribunal  after a review of the evidence produced before  it held that the claimants had proved that the accident was due to  rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver  of the  bus.   The Tribunal found that the  claimant  had  been hospitalised  at  Goa Medical College for three  months  for treatment  of injuries sufferred by him.  Having  regard  to the injuries sufferred by the claimant, the Tribunal held he was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 5.Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Narendra preferred an appeal to the Bombay High Court.  A Division Bench of the Bombay  High Court upheld the finding of the  Tribunal  that the  accident was due to rash and negligent driving  by  the bus  driver.   The cross objection filed  by  the  Insurance Company was dismissed.  After taking into consideration  the prospect of the appellant in life and his potential  earning capacity before the accident, it observed that the  injuries sustained  by  the appellant, unfortunately, left  him  com- pletely  disabled  and  his  life,  hence  forth,  will   be miserable.  Therefore, the pain and agony, loss of amenities in  life and permanent disability, as well as the  necessity to  provide for future expenses incidental to  the  injuries sustained,   fully  justify  a  higher  compensation.    The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 1,50,000/- to a total  of Rs.2,70,000/-  with interest at the rate of 12 per cent  per annum  from  the date of the accident till  actual  payment. This  compensation had to be paid jointly and  severally  by the respondents.  Costs were to be paid by the respondents. 6.   The insurance company has now come up in appeal  before this Court.  On 17th     July, 1987 an order was passed con- 246 doning delay of 330 days in preferring this appeal and  also directing  issue of notice to the respondents.   The  notice was confined to only one question i.e whether the  direction issued by the High Court relating to the payment of interest was in conformity with Section 110-CC of the Motor  Vehicles Act.  The appellant was directing to pay Rs. 1,000/- by  way of cost to the respondent within two weeks. 7.   The  contention of the appellant is that a court  or  a tribunal cannot allow interest from a date earlier than  the date   of  making  of  the  claim  for  compensation.    The contention  of the appellant appears to be borne out by  the clear language of the statute.  Section 110-CC provides:-               "  110-CC.  Award of interest where any  claim               is allowed  Where any Court or Claims Tribunal               allows  a  claim for compensation  made  under               this  Act, such Court or Tribunal  may  direct               that in addition to the amount of compensation               simple  interest  shall also be paid  at  such               rate  and from such date not earlier than  the               date of making of the claim as it may  specify               in this behalf." 8.   Ideally  a  claim should be settled as soon  as  it  is made.   Because of the delay in settlement of the  claim  by legal process or otherwise interest may be awarded but  such interest cannot be from a date earlier than the date of  the claim.   The  language of Section 110-CC is clear  that  the interest  can  be awarded by the Court or Tribunal  at  such rate  as  it  thinks fit but the  interest  cannot  be  made payable from a date earlier than the date of the claim.  The contention  of  the appellant on this point  appears  to  be prima facie correct. 9.   This,  however, is not the end of the problem  in  this case.  The accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus No.GTS-1574 has ruined the life of the  claimant. Considering that the claimant was a youngman of good health,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

a sportsman and a bright student, the amount of compensation given by the Bombay High Court does not appear to be on  the high  side.   The  claim  made  was  for  a  total  sum   of Rs.6,25,000/- made up as under:- 1.   Pain and mental      shock.                      Rs. 25,000 2.   Fracture of left leg      and shortening of leg,      skin grafting.               Rs. 25,000 3.   Rt. index finger      operated.                    Rs.  5,000 4.   Fracture of 6th and       7th ribs                     Rs.5,000 5.    Rt. Kidney removed.     Rs.10,000 6.   Loss of vision of      both eyes                     Rs.  50,000 7.   Loss of future, income      and enjoyment of life      (average pay Rs. 1500      p.m. x 12 x 25 years).        Rs.4,50,000 8.   No chances of      marriage.                     Rs. 25,000 9.   Medical expenses and      other expenses, extra      food, fruits,travelling rly.      charges, medical bills,      expenses etc.                  Rs. 25,000 10.  One more operation      on left leg.                    Rs. 5,000                                     ----------      Total :                        Rs.6,25,000                                     ----------                                     ---------- 247 10.  The  claimant  was able to get a small  amount  of  the claim.   In fact, the claim of Rs.4,50,000/- on  account  of loss  of future income and enjoyment of life was made  on  a very  modest basis of Rs. 1,500/- per month.  Even that  was not allowed in full.  The amount of compensation was brought down  to  Rs.2,70,000/-. Considering the  enormity  of  the. suffering  underwent by the claimant and also the  permanent injuries  sustained by him as well as loss of future  income and enjoyment of life, we arc disinclined to interfere  with the order directing payment of interest.  This will have the effect  of further reduction in the quantum of  compensation awarded by the High Court. 11.  There was also enormous delay of 330 days for coming to this  Court  by the appellant.  The claim  was  not  settled promptly.   On  the contrary, the case has been  dragged  on mercilessly.   The appellant also did not pay Narendra,  the respondent  No. 1, Rs. 1,000/- as directed by this Court  in time.   The respondent No. 1 will be entitled to retain  the said  sum  of Rs. 1,000/-.  The appellant will pay  the  re- spondent No. 1 a further sum of Rs. 5,000/by way of costs. 12.  The appeal is dismissed. 249